In a GOV.UK speech launching the 2026 Global Report on Food Crises, UK Development Minister Chapman set out a clear argument: conflict remains a leading cause of severe hunger, and the international response is still too reactive. The minister said worsening fragility, climate stress and economic disruption are combining to push more people into food insecurity. The speech also reaffirmed the UK's participation in the Global Network Against Food Crises. For policy readers, that matters because it signals that the Government wants the report used as an operational tool for co-ordination and financing, not simply as an annual statement of need.
The report's headline finding, as cited by Chapman, is that more than 80 per cent of people facing severe hunger live in places affected by protracted conflict, fragility or crisis. The minister pointed to the Middle East, Sudan and Ukraine as examples of how violence interrupts production, blocks trade and erodes household livelihoods at the same time. That framing moves food security beyond questions of harvests and prices alone. In settings where conflict drives displacement, weakens public institutions and restricts access, food policy becomes inseparable from diplomacy, protection and the management of long-running crises.
Chapman also highlighted the reported closure of the Strait of Hormuz as a fresh pressure point for global food systems. In the Government's account, disruption on that route risks raising fuel and fertiliser costs, with the burden then passed through to import-dependent economies and, ultimately, to poorer households. The speech noted that countries reliant on Gulf fertiliser supplies, including parts of Asia, are exposed to those pressures. It also warned that many countries in Sub-Saharan Africa face acute risk from higher fuel and transport costs. While the United Nations has said a global food price crisis is not inevitable, the minister's point was that the danger increases the longer these shocks persist.
The first policy response set out in the speech was earlier action. Chapman argued that governments and donors have spent years agreeing on the case for resilience, but have not yet matched that consensus with a large enough shift in practice. The priority, in the minister's account, is to strengthen systems before shocks become full humanitarian emergencies, protect livelihoods and help communities adapt to climate change. As an example, Chapman cited Food Crisis Preparedness Plans and a recent global roundtable co-chaired with Somalia's Deputy Prime Minister. The value of that model, according to the speech, is that country-led early warning can bring partners together sooner, improve co-ordination and use scarce resources more effectively, even if it cannot remove every financing constraint.
The second theme was sharper targeting of resources. Chapman called for better use of forecasts and for money to be directed where it can both reduce immediate suffering and limit future need. The speech was unusually direct in arguing that international actors still too often work in silos and intervene after conditions have already deteriorated. That argument reaches beyond aid agencies. Chapman said climate funds and international financial institutions need to play a stronger role in fragile countries if the system is to operate at the necessary scale. For officials following this agenda, the message is that crisis response, climate adaptation and development finance can no longer be planned on separate timetables.
The speech then turned to co-ordination across humanitarian, development and political work. Chapman accepted that humanitarian assistance will remain essential for life-saving support, but argued that repeated food crises cannot be addressed through short-term projects alone. A conversation with Uganda's finance minister was used to illustrate the point: long-term displacement and food insecurity cannot be solved by a succession of temporary interventions. That is a significant signal for donor practice. The Government is indicating that food insecurity in fragile states should be treated as a longer-horizon policy challenge, requiring diplomatic effort, scientific expertise, peacekeeping capacity and trade policy alongside grant funding.
The closing message was about partnership and accountability. Chapman said no single government or institution can close the gap between needs and available resources, and placed local leadership at the centre of any credible response. An upcoming Global Partnerships Conference, being organised with BII, CIFF and South Africa, was presented as the next opportunity to test whether that principle will shape real financing decisions. For Policy Wire readers, the speech is notable less for a single new announcement than for the policy line it consolidates. The UK Government is tying its food security position more closely to conflict prevention, anticipatory action, country-led planning and multilateral co-ordination. The practical test will be whether those themes alter funding flows and decision-making before the next warning becomes the next emergency.